Letters to the Editor

I have been a "conservative" since Barry Goldwater ran for POTUS and have voted in every general election. I believe that voting my conscience is not wasting my vote as evidenced by my vote for Ross Perot when he ran. However, this year I realized that for the past two decades I have been voting for "the lesser of two evils". After researching all available political parties I found that the platform of the Constitution Party matched my beliefs.

The mission of the Constitution Party is to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity through the election (at all levels of government) of Constitution Party candidates who will uphold the principles of the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution of the United States, and the Bill of Rights. It is our goal to limit the federal government to its delegated, enumerated, Constitutional functions. This mission maintains our integrity.

Historically, our candidates only win city or county offices and rarely state level offices. This year may be different. I think the Republican Party will remain split whether Donald Trump wins or loses the nomination. If he wins the nomination the "establishment" Republicans will be looking for an alternative. If he loses the nomination due to "dirty tricks" his supporters will be irate and searching for an alternative to the "chosen" nominee. Unfortunately for Republicans, by the time they realize their dilemma it will be too late to launch a new third-party candidate and the existing third-parties will have already selected their nominees. Our Constitution Party national convention is April 13 thru April 16. It would be smart for the truly conservative Republicans to submit a viable presidential candidate to the Constitution Party convention. If selected by the attending delegates as our nominee he/she would provide an option after the Republican convention. However, the Republican Party "bosses" refuse to plan for anything except party unity after the convention.

In the General Election I plan to vote for all available Constitution Party nominees first, and then for Republican nominees for the remaining offices. If Hillary Clinton wins but the House and Senate remains Republican the nation should survive another four years and my conscience will be clear.

It is time for those of us in rural Oregon to take responsibility and charge of our needs. We have stood by and waited too long for Salem to take notice of the difference in rural and urban communities. They have continuously ignored our pleas to help stabilize funding in counties dependent upon our natural resources for county funding, yet they push for clean energy reforms which are not proven to be cost effective, and will roll out by 2025. To add insult to injury, they classify them as emergency measures, to take effect immediately, and push them through the short legislation session. Do they not understand the word emergency? Where was the $2 billion that would have given rural counties the ability to provide basic public safety services to its citizens, and saved nearby jurisdictions from sacrificing their own public safety concerns and dollars? Why did we not see the PERS financial time bomb addressed? This will financially affect every city, county, state agency (and yes that means taxpayer), as they scramble to fund PERS liabilities now, not 2025. Could it be because their own pocketbooks are at stake? It is time for a grassroots movement to bring local control back to local communities. We can begin by reclaiming 50% of lottery funds being taken from our local counties currently going into a "honeypot" in Salem. Go to www.lotterylocalcontrol.com to learn how much money that means to your county. Then download the e-petition, sign and send it to the Lottery Local Control Committee. We need to show Salem that rural Oregon has a voice, and demand it be heard! It is time.

The American President tells us that by Executive Order he has directed the Labor Department to eliminate the distinction between salaried and hourly workers in the United States. He has also announced a “Female Equal Pay Program” … that too by Executive Order.

Now some in our small town are curious … into what closet did he put the Equal Pay Act of 1963 and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 … and the Fourth, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution?

Ah well, no matter … by executive action, the president appears to be ordering up a “Universal General Pay Schedule” scheme for all workers everywhere. In effect, employers will be commanded to pay the job, not the person – no more “merit raises.” No more complications from “seniority” or performance or ability.

Think about it, with the stroke of a pen, the President of the United States has lifted the terrible burden of determining a “worker’s” pay and value from employers and shifted it to “ …The Schedule.”

Great God a’ mighty, free at las’…! “Workers” and “bosses” will no longer be troubled by the onerous process of negotiating compensation based on experience, skill, perceived personal value or potential. Now all that’s needed is a quick check of “The Schedule’s” “time in grade chart” and instantly, an individual’s “work value” is established. And it’s a published lifetime value … no secret pay packets ... very communal.

Yes indeed, we’re thundering on to a socialist future…a prix fixe life track … A planned superhighway with no off-ramps until Indian Wells …and that perpetual care garden just beyond.

No doubt about it, the Socialist Collective firm of Sanders/ Clinton would be much pleased …

President Obama is portraying his current Supreme Court of The United States (SCOTUS) replacement nominee as a "centrist". Sounds all nice and fair, does it not? Whenever I hear a politician says something that 'sounds' fair, I run to the internet (Wikipedia most frequently) to find out what he/she actually means.

Democrat centrism is a creation of the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) which was founded in 1985 ... as a self-declared "antidote" to the electoral successes of Reaganism! How can many (any?) Republicans support a Supreme Court nominee who is opposed to Reagan's principles/policies and his constitutional conservatism? Why support replacing Scalia, the unarguably strongest constitution originalist on the Supreme Court, with one who will most likely rule in a “progressive” manner on non-economic matters? Without a doubt, that will shift SCOTUS significantly more progressive ... i.e., 5 to 3 with the ninth justice voting roughly in the middle. How do you think a SCOTUS balanced 5 to 3 progressive will turn out for the Republican half of the country? How is that 'fair' as Obama claims?

As a reference point, Bill Clinton was the DLC chairman prior to stepping down to run for president and claimed to be a "Second Wave New (Centrist) Democrat". According to Wikipedia, Clinton epitomized this centrist New Democrat movement which was, and still is, dominated by socially progressive but economically more moderate power-players in Wall Street (!), Hollywood and Silicon Valley, the types of special interests mostly opposed by Republican voters. But SCOTUS doesn't even rule on the only element of this movement that is actually 'centrist' ... i.e., economic matters.

Candidate Obama declared to the DLC on March 10, 2009 that he is a Clinton Style "New Democrat" too ... pro-growth, fair trade, balanced budgets, welfare reform. However, many of Obama's policies stand in stark conflict with Clinton's Democrat Centrism, so when Obama declares his jurist nominee is "centrist", exactly what does he mean? It is not what Republican's think, nor apparently what most Democrat voters think.

The political atmosphere is changing quickly in rural America. The top political concerns are shifting to preserving property and personal rights. Ironically, people who regard themselves as patriots and study the Constitution are now considered extremists by the federal regulatory and law enforcement agencies. Citizens who want to limit federal governmental powers are suspected of having anti-American beliefs. The people are electing officials with concerns and beliefs similar to their own. New associations are being formed regarding these beliefs.

One new group, the Coalition of Western States (COWS) was formed in 2014. Their purpose is to “restore management of public lands to the States where it constitutionally belongs.” The organization has 50 legislators and grass roots leaders predominately in the Western United States. Members of this group include Nevada Assemblywomen Michele Fiore and Washington House Republican Matt Shea. The Headline of the Oregon Public Broadcasting (OPB) report that covered this groups' activities at Malheur Refuge said: "GOP Politicians Planned and Participated in Key Aspects of Refuge Occupation."

Another group is the Constitutional Officers and Peace Officers Association. Their mission statement is: "To equip sheriffs, peace officers and public officials with the necessary information and public support to carry out their duties in accordance with their Oaths of Office." Sheriff Glenn Palmer of Grant County, Oregon was the “Constitutional Sheriff of the Year" for 2012. Palmer sees himself “not fighting with the federal government. In my opinion I’m defending the people that I serve.” The Oregon Department of Justice is now investigating Sheriff Glenn Palmer in regards to his association with the leaders of the Malheur Occupation. If state regulators were to revoke Palmer’s law enforcement certification, it would not necessarily result in his removal from office. He would be breaking the law if he continued to perform law enforcement duties without certification but only a vote by Grant County citizens could force him out of his job.

The Fully Informed Jury Association was organized by Larry Dodge, former chair of the Montana Libertarian Party in the summer of 1989. The association’s primary function is to educate jurors about their duty to act as a check and balance system against unfair laws or unfair application of laws. "Jury nullification of law occurs when a jury returns a Not Guilty verdict even though jurors believe the defendant has broken the law. Because the Not Guilty verdict cannot be overturned, and because the jurors cannot be punished for their verdict, the law is said to be nullified in that particular case." The association's website has a Jurors' Handbook that outlines a juror’s rights plus in-depth resources on issues affecting jurors. A must read.

The group called Oath Keepers started soon after Hurricane Katrina when members of the military found it necessary to refuse orders directing them to fire upon their fellow citizens. Their position statement says: "Oath Keepers is a non-partisan, non-profit, national association of active duty and veteran military, law enforcement, firefighters and all, who take seriously their oath to support and defend the U.S. Constitution".... "Oath Keepers does not promote, condone or tolerate violence in any form. We are not a militia or paramilitary group. We intend to simply be a resource and an aid to constitutional law enforcement in time of crisis and to train our neighbors so that resources are used wisely." The III Percent Mission Statement is a quote from Thomas Jefferson: "Rightful Liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others." In the Criminal Complaint leading to the arrests associated with the Malheur Occupation, the Oath Keepers and III% ers were identified as "organizations associated with the anti-American patriot movement."

Pacific Patriots Network mission statement is ... "to provide a comprehensive and integrated response that coordinates community resources to protect life, liberty, property and the environment of our communities through mitigation, preparedness, response and recovery from all natural and man-made hazards that may impact our communities. We are our community’s first responders."

These groups are all growing quickly during these turbulent times, often because of unjust court rulings. For example; the BLM and Forest Service court case against the grazing rights of the Hage Family Ranch near Tonapah, Nevada has lasted decades. Legal fees cost millions of dollars and there have been eight published decisions in three courts. The Hage family’s' victory at the U.S. District Court was overturned in mid-January 2016 by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. Wayne Hage, Jr. told the Las Vegas Review-Journal, “It looks to me like the 9th Circuit just swelled the ranks of the militias.” Appeals courts consist of three judges and do not use a jury.

"It is not only his [the juror's] right, but his duty . . . to find the verdict according to his own best understanding, judgment, and conscience, though in direct opposition to the direction of the court." John Adams